quote:
Here's an olive branch sonnikke.
I admit that I have been a little sarcasm heavy.
While it was in response to statements like your initial accusation that my opinions lead to genocide, and your parting insult regarding what happens if I end up before God, that is really no excuse. It does not help discussion, and I apologize, and will try to avoid that in the future.
Thanks, I appreaciate that. FYI, I was not insulting anyone (at least not intending to) by my "before God" question. I
sincerely am curious as to the position each person has in this regard.
I will also do my best to avoid insulting remarks, my apologies for any previous statements that weren't respectful.
My interpretation of the bible is not hinging on miraculous. I take it on its word. Therefore if God said He created the cosmos and man, then I have no reason to doubt that.
The story you presented is one I have heard before, and one that I agree with. If anything, it shows that we may not always get the answer the way
we want it, because God's ways are higher than our ways. We
cannot know the mind of God. Compared with Him we are like nothing, yet to Him we are worth dying for.
You mention the bible being just a book, suggesting perhaps copying errors. Yet, I could easily find references to prove how incredibly accurate todays copies are, to the originals. I'm sure you know that as well.
You speak of your pastor. Are you still attending church?
There is another point I wish to illuminate. Repeatedly you have mentioned ID in relation to IC, however, I never made the assertion that my design examples were or were not in accordance with IC.
It is my contention that
regardless of IC, the complexity and functionality were in and of themselves, at the very least, an inference of design, based on logical conclusions from everyday life, where we infer design in many observed instances.
This is obviously a debate forum, and as such, anything anyone says is going to be controverted by the opposing side. That said, I mentioned that I take God's word for what it says, and I do. The obvious response is that "science" doesn't agree with the
age, for instance. And, within the christian community this is hotly debated.
I have been on both sides of the fence, but when I dug deeper it became clear to me that an old world just doesn't fit with the evidence out there. That is just one example. My point is (whether it's clear or not, I don't know) that there's a conflict of interest with perhaps
all parties involved. Evolutionary science depends on old ages, uniformitarionism, and arguably, a God-less universe. Therefore, any evidence "science" gathers that isn't in line with this paradigm, must get discarded or overlooked.
So you can't tell me to "open my eyes to the fruits of science" (sorry I can't find your exact quote) because in a lot of areas in science, the bias towards to current paradigm does not allow for veracious investigation.
It therefore comes down to one thing, in ALL our lives, and that is faith. We must all decide on which side of the fence we want to be. Because, no one can say for 100% certainty that they have all the facts, or that they know everything. The evidence that two scientists examine, can usually fit two different paradigms, depending on what assumptions you
begin with.
I have often said that evolutionists possess much greater faith than the creationist. Because you believe in spite of the unfathomable odds, and the evidence you see.
We all have choices to make, I guess that's why I was curious what you would say on that final day.
Hope this made some sense, it's getting late.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."
)
™ Version 4.2
